ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared as part of a campaign statement for Velazquez, who is seeking election as alderman in the town of Barchester:
"Under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. Criminals in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated, because the following year Spartanburg saw a 20% drop in violent crimes such as homicide. Our town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
MY RESPONSE:
The argument concludes that our town should learn from Darco's success, and begin a large scale crackdown on petty crime. This conclusion is based on the evidence that in city of Spartanburg jailing people for petty crime resulted in a 20% drop in violent crimes in that city. The above conclusion is flawed in several aspects.
First, the argument mentions a causal relationship. That the outcome for jailing people for petty crime has reduced the violent crimes in the city of Spartanburg but it may not be applicable or it may not lead to the reduction in violent crimes in the town Barchester. There could be several reasons why we cannot apply the same type of policy in Barchester: Barchester is a town which could have people who doesn't commit petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. So police may not get any person to jail.
Second, The author presents a questionable assumption that the violent crime drop was a result of jailing the people for petty crimes. There is no evidence stated in the argument that other factors such as heavy fines, good employment opportunities in the city which resulted in people leaving the crime and doing respectable jobs, migration of the people who commit crime to the much bigger cities where more wealth is located , are not the reasons for the reduction in the violent crimes.
Third, the passage does not clearly mention that the jailing has began just the year before the city has seen the drop in violent crime. The jailing might have started earlier to the Police commissioner Draco and it might not be the only reason why the crime rate dropped.
The argument would have been more logically sound if the author included evidence such as the jailing was not implemented earlier to Draco, the solution of reducing the crime in Spartanburg is applicable to Barchester, similarities in the towns crime behavior, and Crime drop in Spartanburg is purely related to the jailing of the people for petty crimes not because of other reasons. Without which the argument is flawed.
The following appeared as part of a campaign statement for Velazquez, who is seeking election as alderman in the town of Barchester:
"Under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. Criminals in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated, because the following year Spartanburg saw a 20% drop in violent crimes such as homicide. Our town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
MY RESPONSE:
The argument concludes that our town should learn from Darco's success, and begin a large scale crackdown on petty crime. This conclusion is based on the evidence that in city of Spartanburg jailing people for petty crime resulted in a 20% drop in violent crimes in that city. The above conclusion is flawed in several aspects.
First, the argument mentions a causal relationship. That the outcome for jailing people for petty crime has reduced the violent crimes in the city of Spartanburg but it may not be applicable or it may not lead to the reduction in violent crimes in the town Barchester. There could be several reasons why we cannot apply the same type of policy in Barchester: Barchester is a town which could have people who doesn't commit petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. So police may not get any person to jail.
Second, The author presents a questionable assumption that the violent crime drop was a result of jailing the people for petty crimes. There is no evidence stated in the argument that other factors such as heavy fines, good employment opportunities in the city which resulted in people leaving the crime and doing respectable jobs, migration of the people who commit crime to the much bigger cities where more wealth is located , are not the reasons for the reduction in the violent crimes.
Third, the passage does not clearly mention that the jailing has began just the year before the city has seen the drop in violent crime. The jailing might have started earlier to the Police commissioner Draco and it might not be the only reason why the crime rate dropped.
The argument would have been more logically sound if the author included evidence such as the jailing was not implemented earlier to Draco, the solution of reducing the crime in Spartanburg is applicable to Barchester, similarities in the towns crime behavior, and Crime drop in Spartanburg is purely related to the jailing of the people for petty crimes not because of other reasons. Without which the argument is flawed.
